A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
Answering my critics
Published on November 1, 2004 By Champas Socialist In Democrat
I've been accused all sorts of things by the Right in the past few days. Many of these acussations have been amusing. One of the accusations (less amusing, simply interesting) has been that I simply believe what I am told about Bush's stupidity, not endeavouring to think for myself. Naturally I refute this. I mean, I haven't been in Bush's mind testing his neurological processes, I have to rely on what I see of him and what the media reports, but I make my own judgments. I think I have developed a fair reputation during the Australian election of being critical of the parties I support where I believe they have failed, and many have said so. It is harder to apply this to a foreign country's politics because I hear less, but I have made my own genuine assessments about Bush as well as Kerry. And I assess Kerry as an articulate, intelligent man capable of negotiating with people respectfully and in a clam manner. I have seen some excellent examples of him being able to talk with people and resolve disputes and calm people down.

I think there is far more to Bush's "stupidity" than an inability as a public speaker. One startling fact has always been that Bush had never travelled out of the United States until he was elected President. Overseas travel does broaden the mind for many people. (Not all. Of course we all know of the loud and obnoxious tourists who arrive at the Arc de Triomphe and declare for all to hear that they have much better back home.)

But Bush's Iraq and foreign policy to me shows his inability to understand the idea that people come from different perspectives, that people live their lives differently, that there are cultural differences that need to be respected between countries (and within countries, which I think he fails to understand given some of his extreme religious comments. It is well and good for him to be religious, but he governs for many non-religious people and people of different religions and these religious Right comments are not relevant or helpful. As his mate John Howard says, you have to govern for all, not just the people who agree with you).

Many moderate Iraqis have expressed their frustration with the way the USA, under Bush has come in and simply told them what they should do.

Salam Pax: There is this one problem, is that when they come with this idea that "Let's teach those backward brown people over there how it's supposed to be done." It's a problem with who thinks is superior to us. And coming over to Iraq telling you what you're supposed to be doing without understanding your own culture is a problem. But of course we all realised there was no way to get rid of Saddam without foreign intervention. You are standing in the middle not knowing whether to invite them in or to kick them out. You don't know what to do. You have to wait. I am still hoping and trying to be optimistic with all the problems, just looking forward and hoping that some time in the future things will get better. The 'benevolent West'. Well, they're trying. They are not listening enough to Iraqis, but they're kind of trying.

This is what Kerry is talking about when he says that he supported the removal of Saddam, but not Bush's methods. He has shown a complete arrogance and lack of cultural understanding in the invasion and implementation of democracy. I think democracy is a better system than dictatorship, albeit not the best model of democracy. However, the Republicans have been so focussed on military involvement that they have ignored working with the people, and giving them a hand up so that they can start their own nation, governed by the people. Iraq is not America and it will never be the same culture. But Bush has shown an inability to understand and respect these differences.

But they also find it offensive that Bush is using their team for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions in Iraq. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

I think Bush has often also shot his mouth off in ways that make diplomacy a nightmare. He says things that create tensions between countries, that, even if they are true, do not need to be said. As a President, you need to be more responsible than this. Honesty is important, but making antagonistic comments or derogatory remarks about other countries is extremely unhelpful. Governments must make attempts at diplomatic negotiations with each other, despite differences in religious persuasions, political persuasions or philosophies. Many US Presidents have succeeded in this. I think Bush Snr and Clinton were far more successful at this than Bush Jnr. Jnr has been a nightmare at this. And Bush's rising arrogance convinces me that he is unaware of these problems with his conduct. I think he is unaware that he is causing tensions that endanger the lives of Westerners. And that is why I support Kerry over Bush. I think the mistakes have been so fundamental and lacking in understanding that it is necessary for a change of President.

In Australia we kept our PM because he has run the economy well in many people's eyes, so despite opposition to Australia's involvement in the war, many considered that the economy was more important. However, Bush has not run the US economy at all well. he has run it terribly, and while Kerry's policies may not be ideal to many, they are fairly liely to be better than Bush's running of the economy, which has such important ramifications for the lives of ordinary Americans.

Comments
on Nov 01, 2004
There's nothing universal or self-apparent about your opinions. When you say someone who doesn't agree with you "lacks understanding" you just sound pompus. The human race has been led for thousands and thousands of years by people you no doubt consider unevolved, and yet somehow we get by. Perhaps you should take that as a clue that your supposedly universal values system isn't so universal, and is CERTAINLY not imperative for our contunued health and well-being..
on Nov 01, 2004
Reply #1 By: BakerStreet - 11/1/2004 3:48:26 AM
There's nothing universal or self-apparent about your opinions. When you say someone who doesn't agree with you "lacks understanding" you just sound pompus. The human race has been led for thousands and thousands of years by people you no doubt consider unevolved, and yet somehow we get by. Perhaps you should take that as a clue that your supposedly universal values system isn't so universal, and is CERTAINLY not imperative for our contunued health and well-being


Thank you *bakerstreet*! I couldn't have said it better myself.
You get an insightful.
on Nov 01, 2004
I have never said there was anything self-evident about my opinions as far as I can recall, and I certainly didn't intend that if I did. I don't think Bush shows lack of understanding because he disagrees with me. I have outlined why I think he shows a lack of understanding. I was referring to his lack of cultural understanding. In fact, some of Bush's comments about other nations I have agreed with. Some of his comments about ethical issues I have some agreement with. But I don't think it is appropriate for political leaders to make these comments in such public forums. I note however that member of the Right after Member of the Right has accused me of a lack of understanding simply for disagreeing, and it was Draginol who accused Kerry of a lack of understanding of foreign relations long before I accused Bush of the same. I don't think Draginol's comments were at all pompous, I simply disagree.

I have never made any refernce to evolution, and I find that a very strange comment to make about people.
on Nov 01, 2004
Champas, I thoroughly read your article and I do not see ANYTHING in it that either explicitly or implicitly suggests that your values are "universal" or "evolutionary." You are simply voicing your opinion, via your own observations, as to why you think Bush lacks cultural understanding and/or why he lacks good judgment. I think your comments illustrate a fully thought out analysis and is based on a variety of criterium and information. I don't know where others are drawing their sweeping and acusative conclusions from because they are certainly not basing it on the content of this article. This leads one to believe that their sweeping accusations are based on some other unarticulated, ambiguous criterium and without having access to it or the benefit of examining that criterium, take it for what it's worth. Don't feel pressured into answering accusations that you have no need to explain. Let the detractors explain what facts they are basing their conclusions on because the burden is on them to articulate it since your article clearly does not convey anything close to what they are promulgating. Your article clearly states that you are asserting your OWN opinion nor does your article present itself as resounding fact. As for not thinking for yourself, I think your article clearly demonstrates that you are capable of forming your opinions based upon your own observations and research and unlike others, you actually provide some evidence as to why you hold the opinions you do.
on Nov 01, 2004
I don't know where others are drawing their sweeping and acusative conclusions from because they are certainly not basing it on the content of this article.


Precisely. It's called attacking straw men. They can't actually refute his arguements so they fight a point he didn't even make. It is a sign of desperation.
on Nov 02, 2004
T_Bone! What's Up?

We agree! Yo, Bro!

But why are we debating the opinion of an Aussie, with all due respect to Australia, a country with so much to recommend it? I don't believe we should be opining on PM Howard since we don't live there. I believe we should leave the Aussie's to make up their own minds about their internal politics without our meddling. And I would appreciate reciprocity. Just my opinion.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 02, 2004
Oh please don't turn this into another censorship debate Daiwa. If you want to criticise Howard, that is your right as a democratic citizen. If you want to criticise Howard, it is your duty as a human being who is concerned about the policies that lead to disadvantage for your fellow human beings. If you want to criticise Saddam, it was your President's duty as a human being concerned for the lives of fellow human beings. It was not your President's duty to comment on Howard Vs Latham because neither can be said to be the equal of Saddam and your President would have to work with whoever we elected. But as ordinary citizens there is not the same need for diplomacy. Respect is fine, but that's another issue.
on Nov 02, 2004
Daiwa Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2004
T_Bone! What's Up?

We agree! Yo, Bro!

"But why are we debating the opinion of an Aussie, with all due respect to Australia, a country with so much to recommend it? I don't believe we should be opining on PM Howard since we don't live there. I believe we should leave the Aussie's to make up their own minds about their internal politics without our meddling. And I would appreciate reciprocity. Just my opinion. "

Because I think everyone is entitled to voice their own opinions no matter where they are from. I don't care what country they live in. They have a right to voice their opinion without having their words and their meaning twisted into something they are not. I have opinions about foreign leaders and I have a right to express them within this forum. If others do not like what I have to say, too bad. They can debate facts or argue with my conclusions but it is quite another to twist someone else's words and accuse them of something without providing a shred of evidence to support their accusations.

As for finally agreeing on something...stranger things have happened!